Mental Illness Database?

[KBCraig]

But have you reviewed Marbury v. Madison recently? Have you got any idea what the courts are for?

LOL, you chose an interesting case to cite when discussing the role of the courts. In Marbury, the Court appointed itself as final arbiter of the Constitution, a role not found in the Constitution nor agreed to by the other two branches of government.

"Mr. Chief Justice has made his ruling; now let him enforce it!" was the classic reply, and it's a shame we don't hear that more often, instead of fawning capitulation.

[Lucky45]

Are we able to check our status on the Federal Mental Illness database already???????? Just checking.


In all fairness, I think Geister is one of those idealistic guys that like to stick to exact literal writing of the laws and changes should be never made. That is fine. Whenever this world reaches the utopic level where laws won't be needed and everyone gets along, then we could stick to the letter of the law.
Until then, a CIVILIZATION cannot function without rules or regulations, otherwise there WILL be CHAOS. That is what seperates HUMANS from ANIMALS. And since the constitution was written years ago, before TV, radio, planes, satellites, times have changed and people have EVOLVED in life. Therefore, all along the ways the same laws and regulations have EVOLVED and changed accordingly by the people who were majority voted in as a REPRESENTATIVE of the population to form a government. And since the process of making your opinion count by send your representative has not changed. (ie VOTING), there should be no argument that is what the MAJORITY of the population at that PRESENT TIME is in agreement of.
So it is really striking that you keep running back to the 1700s when we are in 2007. So now we are at a point where a change is being ask to be made to a law since times have evolved and seems that you are exhibiting alot of fear. The pen is mightier than the sword, so strike your X down on that ballot when it is time for it, and let the majority AS ALWAYS decide since they are the government...right?


P.S.

Geister wrote:

The Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights so that the COMMON MAN could read and understand it.

My Apache Indian co-worker told me not to sign anything I till I check with him first.

[Lucky45]

the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. We can rattle sabers and beat our collective chests as long as we want, but at the end of the day, 9 men and women have the final word. I don’t like that one bit, but that’s the way it is. Chas.

Was busy typing when you posted, but thank you. Can I have your permission to attach some strings and rattle you and say the same thing lawyerly like you and maybe some can get it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

But have you reviewed Marbury v. Madison recently? Have you got any idea what the courts are for?

LOL, you chose an interesting case to cite when discussing the role of the courts. In Marbury, the Court appointed itself as final arbiter of the Constitution, a role not found in the Constitution nor agreed to by the other two branches of government.

"Mr. Chief Justice has made his ruling; now let him enforce it!" was the classic reply, and it's a shame we don't hear that more often, instead of fawning capitulation.

Well, I think SOME branch of government has to be able to do it, and the Judiciary seems to be the logical one. Otherwise, the Exec. and Leg. branches could pass any law they wanted to, violating the constitution at will, and if called on it could simply say, "It's the law."

The Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, would be rendered meaningless.

Of course Congress DOES retain the power to limit the jurisdiction of the courts, though this power has only been used sparingly over the years.

[frankie_the_yankee]

This is an interesting discussion. I am a “strict constructionist� when it comes to the Constitution.

I also believe that all of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights. As such, they should be subject to the “strict scrutiny� test which makes it virtually impossible to “regulate� a fundamental right.

But not COMPLETELY impossible.

That said, the constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. We can rattle sabers and beat our collective chests as long as we want, but at the end of the day, 9 men and women have the final word. I don’t like that one bit, but that’s the way it is.

And sometimes I don't like it, but it HAS to be that way. Geister's posts are peppered with statements like, "The 2nd Amendment says this, and that means THAT." (paraphrasing of course). Of course what he is really saying is that HE KNOWS WHAT IT "REALLY" MEANS AND ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH HIM DOES NOT.

What about the other 299,999,999 of us? Do we all have to simply agree with him?

He is right that the Constitution was written to be understood by the common man. And that works great as long as there is only ONE of them. But let 2 or 3 or 300 million of them read it, and there is likely to be honest disagreement as to what it means, or more precisely, what The Founders INTENDED it to mean.

Hence my question. If we disagree as to what it is supposed to mean, what do we DO? Do we who disagree about what the Constitution means shoot it out and let the best shot/fastest gun call the tune? I don't think so.

I think we select the best and most honorable people we can, by the best means we know how, and all agree with each other to peacefully abide by what THEY SAY it means.

And we call these people, "The Supreme Court".

And these very smart, educated, and (mostly) honorable people were and are well aware of the legal doctrines of strict scrutiny, compelling interest, etc., that existed in the common law long before the Constitution, and are rightfully employed to interpret it.

Now I might think that The Court has gone way, way overboard in recent years in using these principles, especially that of a compelling interest, to twist the Constitution beyond recognition (McCain-Feingold, anyone?). After all, the 1st Amendment begins with the strongest formulation found anywhere in the Constitution, "Congress shall make no law....."

Think about that. It doesn't say rights to free speech, religion, etc. "shall not be infringed". It specifically states that the Congress is allowed to MAKE NO LAW on these matters. And in spite of this, The Court went on to endorse something like 1800 pages of law stipulating when political ads can be run, how money may be raised to pay for them, and even, what the ads may say (or what they must NOT say).

I'm not agreeing with any of this mind you. Far from it. But if we say that the 2nd Amendment has been offended in some jurisdictions over the years, by comparison the 1st Amendment has been shredded and burned.

The best we can do is work hard to elect a President, Senators and Representatives that best reflect our views and hope for vacancies on the Supreme Court. Even then, we can have a ringer get in. I’m sure Ike would have been rolling in his grave if he had seen Justice Brennan’s decisions. But this is our system and there is no reason to battle among ourselves because we don’t like it.

Chas.

Now, I'm not claiming this to be beyond challange, but FWIW, I can see a "compelling interest" in allowing for certain limitations on the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights. Such as:

1) No guns or CHLs for adjucated psychos and those determined by a court to be mentally incompetent. Databases should be cross referenced as needed.

2) No guns or CHLs for convicted violent felons. Note, not ANY felons, just violent ones. Just my opinion.

3) No guns or CHLs for habitual drunks and/or dope addicts. Defined by adjudication as above for psychos. Essentially a different form of mental incompetence.

4) No guns in sterile areas. This includes no guns for CHLs in these areas. A sterile area is one protected by armed guards where everyone entering is screened for weapons. My list of allowable sterile areas would be short. Courtrooms and airplanes come to mind, but I am sure that there are some others that could qualify. In essence, I am making a bargain here. You make SURE that no one else has a gun or other weapon, you agree to protect the premesis with ARMED FORCE (i.e. not some stupid sign or policy), and I'll agree to not carry a weapon myself.

Sure, the risk isn't zero, but it never is. In this case it is a tradeoff, and in my opinion a good one.

5) The manner of carrying guns can be subject to reasonable regulation by the individual states. To me this would include requiring a permit to carry, as long as it was of the "shall issue" type, allowing carrying without a permit if the state so chooses, allowing for concealed carry, and limiting, but not banning, open carry as the state so chooses.

I do not regard any of the above to be unconstitutional "infringements" on the 2nd Amendment.

At the present time, many states limit or even prohibit carrying guns in ways that go far beyond the above and in my view are both unreasonable and unconstitutional. These are the things that we need to work to change.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Until then, a CIVILIZATION cannot function without rules or regulations, otherwise there WILL be CHAOS. That is what seperates HUMANS from ANIMALS. And since the constitution was written years ago, before TV, radio, planes, satellites, times have changed and people have EVOLVED in life. Therefore, all along the ways the same laws and regulations have EVOLVED and changed accordingly by the people who were majority voted in as a REPRESENTATIVE of the population to form a government.

I mostly agree, but let make one distinction. It is true that laws and regulations need to change to accommodate the ever-changing situation we live in as time marched on.

But these changes must rightfully be accomplished by voting to change the law or amend the Constitution - NOT by suddenly deciding that the meaning of a law or portion of the Constitution has CHANGED ALL BY ITSELF.

It is clear, for instance, that the 2nd Amendment protects (NOT "CREATES") an individual right. But along came people in the 20th century who "discovered" that what everyone from The Founders on down had thought for 150 years or so was (Surprise!) NOT TRUE! They said, "It's REALLY a "collective right" you see. It's just that those poor fools who came before us were not smart enough to realize it."

In effect, they amended the Constitution without going through the process. This is patently wrong.

As Scalia has said, "The Constitution is not a 'living document'. It's just a 'document'. It says some things, and it does not say other things."

If we don't like what it says, we amend it, thorugh a process that is intentionally difficult, but that it designed to ensure that it cannot be amended without having a broad consensus in favor of doing it.

And whether it's Roe v. Wade or McCain-Feingold, this is exactly what previous Courts have done in recent years - effectively amending the Constitution in the ABSENCE of a consensus.

And we can see what problems and conflicts have ensued from that.

We are now at the threshold of getting a definitive individual rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - the one we should have had all along - engraved in stone by the US Supreme Court.

We should be celebrating, not worrying that limiting "guns for psychos" might be an "infringement".

[jimlongley]

4) No guns in sterile areas. This includes no guns for CHLs in these areas. A sterile area is one protected by armed guards where everyone entering is screened for weapons. My list of allowable sterile areas would be short. Courtrooms and airplanes come to mind, but I am sure that there are some others that could qualify. In essence, I am making a bargain here. You make SURE that no one else has a gun or other weapon, you agree to protect the premesis with ARMED FORCE (i.e. not some stupid sign or policy), and I'll agree to not carry a weapon myself.

Sure, the risk isn't zero, but it never is. In this case it is a tradeoff, and in my opinion a good one.

Which is not what exists now, and I could tell you tales.

5) The manner of carrying guns can be subject to reasonable regulation by the individual states. To me this would include requiring a permit to carry, as long as it was of the "shall issue" type, allowing carrying without a permit if the state so chooses, allowing for concealed carry, and limiting, but not banning, open carry as the state so chooses.

I would have to respectfully disagree here, Vermont style carry should be the law of the land at a minimum.

I do not regard any of the above to be unconstitutional "infringements" on the 2nd Amendment.

At the present time, many states limit or even prohibit carrying guns in ways that go far beyond the above and in my view are both unreasonable and unconstitutional. These are the things that we need to work to change.

I regard any infringement to be just that, regardless of degree.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I would have to respectfully disagree here, Vermont style carry should be the law of the land at a minimum.

OK. Let's go with that. Do you think that Cho should have been able to buy a gun and carry it in public? If yes, then you're being consistent and all I can do is say that I have a different opinion.

But if you say "No he shouldn't have been able to lawfully buy one.", or "No, he shouldn't have been able to carry one (lawfully).", then here is the problem.

I can't think of any way without a background check that could prevent him from buying one (lawfully). And I can't think of any way that VT style carry could prevent him from lawfully carrying a gun.

Now, sure, he could buy or carry one unlawfully. Criminals and psychos do it all the time. But at least they have to do it "on the lam", so to speak. And they know if they get caught, they will do time.

To me that is preferrable to allowing them to tapdance down the street as they please.

It makes it harder. At the margin, fewer of them will do it. And it inconveniences me and other good folks very little.

[Lucky45]

I mostly agree, but let make one distinction. It is true that laws and regulations need to change to accommodate the ever-changing situation we live in as time marched on.

But these changes must rightfully be accomplished by voting to change the law or amend the Constitution - NOT by suddenly deciding that the meaning of a law or portion of the Constitution has CHANGED ALL BY ITSELF.

I think you might have missed my next line in the same post,

And since the process of making your opinion count by send your representative has not changed. (ie VOTING), there should be no argument that is what the MAJORITY of the population at that PRESENT TIME is in agreement of.

So I don't think there is a distinction because we are in total agreement.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think you might have missed my next line in the same post,

And since the process of making your opinion count by send your representative has not changed. (ie VOTING), there should be no argument that is what the MAJORITY of the population at that PRESENT TIME is in agreement of.

So I don't think there is a distinction because we are in total agreement.

OK. I took it to mean that a majority could vote away the Bill of Rights.

But if you mean that a majority can act as it chooses through the established amendment process - 2/3 of both the Senate and the House, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the states - then we agree.

But note that to act through the amendment process requires that a broadly held consensus exists among the people, which is exactly what The Founders appear to have intended.

In other words, it takes a BIG majority. A slim one could never pull it off.

What I am copncerned about is that if we become vocal advocates of "guns for psychos and violent felons", we will cause a big majority to form - AGAINST US.

[tomneal]

I am for "guns for psychos"


My problem is WHO is going to define psycho?
I am not as concerned about the current definitions of psycho. I am real concerned about future definitions of psycho.


Recently, in Germany, two teenage girls were adjudicated as psychos because the prefered Home School to Public School.


What about ADD and ADHD?
Are we going to have another retroactive law saying if you have ever taken drugs for those illnesses, you can not own firearms? 'cause you're psycho?


Until 1968, felons could legaly buy and own firearms. Our country survived and even prospered.
Today, there are folks convicted of felonys that my Sunday School teacher wouldn't even have considered 'wrong'.
If you're a felon and still a danger, you should still be in prison.


How do you think "psycho" will be defined 30 years from today?
If you're a psycho and still a danger, you should still be in the hospital.

[Lucky45]

My problem is WHO is going to define psycho?
I am not as concerned about the current definitions of psycho. I am real concerned about future definitions of psycho.

Recently, in Germany, two teenage girls were adjudicated as psychos because the prefered Home School to Public School.

I OBJECT, I think this example is irrelevant, tomneal. You are comparing the laws of Germany to the laws of the USA. Two completely different countries. Find a case in one of the 50 states in the US. We can't use that comparison, because what about Saudi Arabia. They cut your head, hands, feet, whatever off for several common crimes. So are going to start using their examples for mental illness. Let's stick to the US.

What about ADD and ADHD?

There is already a cure for that. It is called a 2" leather belt running perpendicular to your backside. Now you can buy a gun.

[pbandjelly]

What about ADD and ADHD?

There is already a cure for that. It is called a 2" leather belt running perpendicular to your backside. Now you can buy a gun.

[tomneal]

ADD & ADHD

I wasn't being clear.
What if 10 years from now, someone like Laughtonberg gets a law passed that if you ever took perscription drugs for ADD or ADHD or depression or some other "mental illness", then you are 'psycho' and can no longer posess firearms. Even if it's been 20 years since you took them. Please remember domestic abuse.

Belts
In California they already tried to pass a law against spanking your kids. I remember a news article about a parent in Floridia that spanked their child in a store being charged with child abuse. And, it wasn't with a 2" belt.


As to stupid psycho laws.
The German Home School psycho was a story that I have been watching for a few weeks. It seemed like a good example of a stupid psycho law. I guess I'll have to do some googling to find a example in the US that is just as dumb.



It seems I missed making my point so, let me try again:

What seems reasonable now may become unreasonable later becase of changes in definitions or laws. That unreasonableness may not affect us but it will affect our children and grandchildren.




When the 1968 gun control act was passed, felonys were bad. Usualy breaking a law that could be traced back to one of the 10 comandments.
Now, when I think of felonys, I think of the supervisor in Alaska that is in prision because one of his workers cut a pipeline with a back hoe. The worker was more than 200 miles away.

[DMG]

Lucky45:

By flipantly prescribing a 2" belt to cure ADD & ADHD you have lost all credibility with me. Speaking with some experience, those are certainly conditions that are properly treated with medications and you can take a belt to their backside all day long and the condition will still be there.

DMG